The next president will face a plethora of foreign policy problems. According to the BBC (where you can actually get international news), there are powder kegs ready to explode in a number of countries in Africa, Iran, Pakistan (to name a few), not to mention how cranky people get when there is not enough food, the whole China/Tibet issue, and the continuing catastrophe that is Isreal/Palestine. Add to this mess that we have shot our military wad in Iraq. I don't think that it is hyperbole to say that our very survival as a nation depends on the next president being cool under fire, an innovative problem solver/good negotiater, not having a chip on his/her shoulder (grave doubts about both McCain and Clinton on this point), and not having some a-priori military agenda (i.e., "bomb, bomb Iran").

McCain is an intelligent guy. So, worst case scenario, he will be a damn sight better than the mental miget that currently occupies the White House. But, I have serious doubts about his ability to negotiate with someone he clearly detests-a skill that we had better develop quickly because the current policy of not talking to the "bad countries" does not now and never has worked ("Hey lets continue to ignore Castro untill he dies of natural causes-that'll teach him).

The next president needs to not only be cool under fire, but also a great peacemaker - someone who inspires trust even in people who aren't currently America's friends. So far that's Obama, hands down.

Even if John McCain is more subject to "righteous anger" than "petty tantrums", I still think that this topic needs to be fully on the table.

The presidents "anger threat level" is a really relevant one, and applies to all candidates equally.

Seeing a purple Hillary shrieking "Shame on you!" kinda freaked me out too. If she were to pull a stunt like that with the head of some country, it causes real problems. The fact that people McCain disagrees with tend to get the nasty end of his temper, and that it's not a short lived thing, is pretty scary in a leader.

Is he going to decide not to speak to the Scottish ambassador for two years because the guy disagreed with him?

But more fundamentally important, will he fall into the same trap that Bush has of firing competent military advisors left, right, and center because they disagree with his proposed course on the war (s)? Or will he simply refuse to listen to them.

Colin Powell, who is BTW a staunch republican, has already come out and flat stated that we CANNOT maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have the troops, or the necessary supplies. Pretty simple. And McCain and Hillary both start sabre rattling at Iran.

This is a real problem. If we can't fund and staff the wars we're already in, how the heck are we supposed to expand them to Iran? We'll get our asses handed to us, or more accurately, the heads of our men and women in uniform.

And, I keep asking this, but no one wants to talk about it. John McCain was a prisoner of war for 5 years. He was isolated. He was tortured. It is a 85% certainty that he has some form of PTSD. His fault, no. Our problem in a commander in chief, hell yes.

I think the danger is that this line of questionning will get colored with the same "why don't you wear the Fashion Accessories of Freedom"/"do you listen to the right lunatics" brush.

The "can you hold your temper" question is actually meaningful. The others are stupid trivia. Oddly enough, I think it is also why I am untroubled and actually encouraged by Obama's friendships with Rev. Wright and others. We now need a president who will listen to people he does not agree with (actually a good way to test the strength of your beliefs) and can pragmatically accept that good qualities often comes with bad ones.

As to the PTSD issue, he may or may not have flashbacks etc., but I don't think this is the main problem. As Hitch aluded to, I think his problem is more of the "short guy"/ego-threat problem. The crankiness may be the chronic pain left over from being tortured.

Actually, I do understand what you're saying.

But also just to clarify. PTSD doesn't even usually involve flashbacks. The more extreme varieties sometimes do. It involves responding with somewhat irrational anger or depression or hilarity to environmental stimulus that would normally not elicit that particular response. It is the unpredictability of an individual's response to any given situation that is usually the defining problem of PTSD.

"bomb, bomb, bomb,...bomb, bomb Iran"

Which one of our non-friends (or as we used to call them, enemies) is going to trust us when Obama is President? What could he possibly say that would bring peace? Why wouldn’t those nations/groups trust us with McCain in office? I know being a great public speaker is important but I don’t think Obama is going to make people like us any more. However, I do think he will help if we do need to go to war somewhere else (and even in Iraq) because of his great public speaking and unifying qualities at home. Actually, I’ve wondered about this, Obama may be a huge boost for us both in Iraq and Afghanistan if the Democrats and Independents that vote him in stick with him after he keeps us in Iraq after he is elected. I really don’t care who is president as long as they help us win in Iraq, hunt down terrorists and hold non-friendly nations accountable for supporting terrorism (whether it is due to actively supporting terrorism or supporting terrorism though inaction). I know Obama will be good for one and two… three is tougher for whom ever is president, so I don’t know about that one. The big question is, will the people responsible for voting Obama in office abandon him after he fails to withdraw from Iraq? How much leeway will the press give him on this front?

Obama is the only candidate who could say "we need to stay in Iraq longer" and not be villified by the press.

That is perfect! I know who I'm voting for:)

Interesting point-and I have certainly seen what you are talking about clinically (I am a psychologist and have worked with Vets at the VA). Typically people talk about what I informally call the positive symptoms of PTSD. However, there seems to be residual-negative symptoms (akin to the distinction between positive and negative symptoms in Schizophrenia) that interfere with psychosocial functioning for a long time to come. Frankly though, McCain is a bit high functioning to fit into this category.

"Which one of our non-friends (or as we used to call them, enemies) is going to trust us when Obama is President?"

A good question. I think one of the reasons that our non-friends might be more likely to trust him is because of some of the very things he is vilified for at home. He has loose ties to the Muslim world, Africa, etc that would have the effect of making him seem less "other" than the rest of us middle class, protestant white folk.

More importantly, he has stated that he is willing to talk face to face with our enemies. This would be a dramatic change in our foreign policy.

nancyh:

More importantly, he has stated that he is willing to talk face to face with our enemies. This would be a dramatic change in our foreign policy.

Humm… I wonder about this. Is it really so great to talk to our enemies? I would say yes, if you were talking about modern day France or Germany, but then again they aren’t what I would call enemies. What would talking with the leaders of Hamas, AQ, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela etc. really get us anyway? This assumes that they want to play along in the first place? What could we possibly give or promise to give Hamas or AQ? And even if we do give them stuff, doesn't that just mean we are paying bad people to behave? Then all they have to do is threaten to be nauty again or else we give them more, sounds like ahold up to me. I don’t believe these groups/nations are interested in the world all getting along, they have specific goals that involve garnering more power, for North Korea that means power in the form of nuclear weapons that they can dangle over everyone’s head in hopes we will pay them to not nuke us or Japan, for Iran that is becoming a dominant power in the region and challenging Israel. Like our enemies in the past, this is a power struggle. Was there any amount of “talking” that would have made a difference to Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, of course not, their plans were much bigger than any negotiation could get them. Well I guess with Japan we could have lifted the oil, steel, and iron embargo on them, but would that have been right, given what they stood for at the time (their actions in China not withstading) How are we so sure that our current enemies don’t also have much bigger plans?

'Is it really so great to talk to our enemies? ... What would talking with the leaders of Hamas, AQ, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela etc. really get us anyway? '

Why are any of those groups other than AQ, our enemies?

Hey, a little anger can ge a good thing. People know McCain has a temper, and they know from his military record he is fearless. He will inspire the proper fear and respect into countries like Iran. They will know that McCain (unlike Bush) might be willing to actually fight a nuclear war. This will make those countries far more likely to cave in to US demands without shots being fired. Hillary is also an angry bitch, but she is NOT fearless. She is unlikely to do anything that would put her life or especially Chelsea's life in danger. (She might be willing to sacrifice Bill) Our enemies know this, and they will try to roll her. When they push her to the wall she will be forced to either nuke them, or suffer a humiliating defeat. Obama is a pacifist and muslim sympathizer and has already made clear he is willing to make concessions to our enemies. If you give an inch they will take a mile, and Iran will definately roll Obama. They will bounce him around like a basketball and roll him around like a bowling ball. And they will score better than 37.

I think that Obama would have an advantage either way.

When it comes to fighting terrorism, he hasn't come off soft even once, he has repeatedly told Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's it. We're pulling out of Iraq as quickly as we can and coming for you because you support terrorists. Can't actually get a lot clearer than that.

When it comes to diplomacy he has said he'll meet with our "non-friends" to discuss problems and concerns, both theirs and ours. ("Non-friends" jeez what an Orwellian phrase.)

We do not have as many enemies in the world as George W. would have one believe. Let's face it, his authority to be an ass has come out of fear in this country. It is in his best interest for us to percieve the world as some dangerous and horrid place where people are all out to get us, then we don't question what's happening nearly as closely.

Not one act of terrorism has happened in America since 9-11. Not one. And there really weren't any before that either were there?

But we have destroyed two entire countries, one of which had no relation to the original problem.

Maybe talking is the better option.

Well, the leaders of Hamas convince young people to strap bombs to themselves to blow up other innocent people (If that doesn’t warrant enemy status, what will?), NK and Venezuela have openly stated that they are our enemies (NK helping to build reactors in Syria alone, warrants enemy status in my book, Hugo and Kim, represent one of the most brutal and oppressive systems of government ever devised, and Hugo continues to try and extend his power. What is going on in the world now is much bigger than 9-11, that was but one incident in a larger struggle, just as the world failed to notice that Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland was not a single action in a vacuum but a barometer for the things to come, not only in Europe but in the Pacific as well. These groups and countries don’t hate us because Bush is our president, you’ll see, they will hate us just as much when Obama is in the White House.